When I first learned to play Monopoly, we had the pressed cardboard game area, the small pieces (I always wanted the car), and the rulebook near in case we needed to check if someone was playing fair.  We read the book, set up the board, dealt the money, and began to play after understanding most of the rules.  We read, understood, and then attempted to play the game.

Jump forward 35 years to the age of the video game.  Without reading any instructions, my kids open the box, put the cartridge in the game console, and begin to hit buttons to see what will happen next.  If they fail, they hit reset, and try again.  Eventually, they master the game through a process of trial-and-error, plus some hints from the web if they get stuck in a game.

In teaching math related courses, I find that the trial-and-error mentality cascades into the homework solutions.  A learner in the class will manipulate the numbers, look in the back of the book, and check their answer.   Any learner, given a few numbers, will eventually put them into their calculator in the correct order and get the correct answer.  That does not mean that the method for arriving at the solution is correct.  I find it a challenge to convince them that getting the right number does not always mean that the concept was understood before, during, or after completing the problem.   I encourage them to show their work, so that I can follow their thought process.   I am looking for ways to evaluate whether the learner is actually using a logical process to arrive at a solution.  Some subjects are not easy to determine if they have actually learned the topic of the day.  In the electronics lab, it is a little easier to determine.  The small puff of smoke from a circuit board indicates that at least one of their processes needs to be re-examined and changed prior to the next learning activity.